Overview of the Document
Document title:
Decision in 2025 Ta No. 1
Date of creation:
December 12, 2025
Issuing body:
Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court
Panel of judges:
Presiding Judge Yoji Shimoyama
Judge Maho Kikuchi
Judge Yu Takada
Requester:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Case number:
2025 Ta No. 1
Underlying case:
Road Traffic Act Violation Case
Original case number:
2011 Wa No. 177
Judgment at issue:
Judgment of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dated January 16, 2012
Type of document:
Decision dismissing the retrial request
Publication format:
PDF with personal information and other necessary portions redacted
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is a decision concerning 2025 Ta No. 1, prepared by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court on December 12, 2025.
At the beginning of this document, it states that “this is a certified copy,” indicating that the document is a certified copy prepared by a court clerk.
The document states the case number as 2025 Ta No. 1.
This document concerns the Road Traffic Act violation case in which the requester was the defendant, namely 2011 Wa No. 177 before the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court, and the judgment pronounced by that court on January 16, 2012.
The document states that, with respect to that judgment, a request for retrial had been made by the requester, and that the court rendered its decision after hearing the opinions of the prosecutor and the requester.
However, in this case, what Toshio Tsumuraya first submitted was the written opinion addressed to the court dated April 28, 2025, and its attached materials.
Thereafter, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated those submissions as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and handled the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1, a Road Traffic Act retrial request case.
This document is the decision dismissing the retrial request as the final stage of that treatment by the court.
The main text states that “the present retrial request is dismissed.”
In the reasons, the court evaluated the contents of the document titled “Written Opinion” dated April 28, 2025, submitted by the requester, and the written opinion dated July 9, 2025, which was a response to the court’s request for opinion, as “not clear.”
The court then stated that, in substance, the request was understood as seeking a decision to commence retrial on the ground that there existed circumstances falling under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the final judgment in the Road Traffic Act violation case.
This document also summarizes the requester’s position as stating that he retained copies of statement records provided by defense counsel after the judgment was pronounced, as well as newspaper articles, council minutes, and other materials collected by the requester as evidence or related materials.
However, the court held that the requester had not clarified the grounds showing that those documents or materials were newly discovered clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal after the final judgment, and that such materials had not been submitted.
As a result, the court held that the request could not be recognized as falling under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that, even upon examining the requester’s remaining assertions, it was clear that none of the grounds for retrial prescribed in the items of that article applied.
Finally, the court held that the present retrial request was without merit and dismissed it pursuant to Article 447, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At the end of this document, the names of the panel are stated as Presiding Judge Yoji Shimoyama, Judge Maho Kikuchi, and Judge Yu Takada.
For details on the request for opinion, see “Request for Opinion by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court — Court Inquiry Concerning the Retrial Request.”
For details on the judgment, see “Judgment of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court — Reasons for the Guilty Judgment and Issues to Be Examined in This Case.”
Important Statements
The first important point in this document is that the court states that it treated the matter as 2025 Ta No. 1 and rendered its decision after hearing the opinions of the prosecutor and the requester.
This statement confirms that the written opinion addressed to the court dated April 28, 2025, and its attached materials were treated by the court as if “a request for retrial had been made,” and that the matter proceeded to a decision after opinions were heard.
Second, the court evaluated the contents of the document titled “Written Opinion” dated April 28, 2025, submitted by the requester, and the written opinion dated July 9, 2025, as “not clear.”
This statement is important.
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials raised issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence by public authorities before the final criminal judgment, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions, the process of statement formation, and the need for judicial relief.
Nevertheless, this document does not specifically explain how those claims were organized or which parts were considered “not clear.”
Third, the court organized the matter as an issue under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In other words, this document processed the requester’s claims within the framework of whether there was newly discovered clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal after the final judgment.
This point is important as the judgment framework under the retrial system.
On the other hand, the issues raised in this case were not limited to whether new evidence existed. They also concerned violations of the presumption of innocence by public authorities before the final criminal judgment, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for effective relief under the ICCPR.
Therefore, how the court positioned those issues within the framework of new evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure becomes a subject of examination.
Fourth, the court held that, with respect to copies of statement records, newspaper articles, council minutes, and other materials, the requester had not clarified the grounds showing that they were newly discovered clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal after the final judgment, and that such materials had not been submitted.
This statement is important in examining how the materials submitted or referred to in this case were treated in relation to the grounds for retrial.
Fifth, the court stated that, even upon examining the requester’s remaining assertions, it was clear that none of the grounds for retrial prescribed in the items of Article 435 applied.
However, this statement is highly comprehensive, and this document does not show any individualized examination of the relationship with violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30, or General Comment No. 31, Paragraphs 15 and 16.
Accordingly, this document is important for examining how the court limited the requester’s claims, how far it made a judgment, and which issues it did not specifically address.
Procedural Position in the Criminal Proceedings
This document is a decision by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request in 2025 Ta No. 1, after the court treated the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials as if “a request for retrial had been made.”
In this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials were submitted on April 28, 2025.
Thereafter, on May 2, 2025, the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued an administrative notice requesting the submission of a certified copy of the original judgment and any evidentiary documents or physical evidence that the requester wished to submit additionally.
Furthermore, on June 13, 2025, the court issued a request for opinion, asking the requester to submit a written opinion by July 11, 2025.
This document confirms the existence of a written opinion dated July 9, 2025, submitted in response to the court’s request for opinion.
Thereafter, on December 12, 2025, this decision dismissing the retrial request was issued.
Accordingly, this document is the court’s decision on the matter that the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court treated as a retrial request case, following the written opinion addressed to the court, the administrative notice, the request for opinion, and the written opinion responding to that request.
This document is the court’s first-stage decision in the retrial request procedure, and it connects to the later immediate appeal and special appeal.
The issues in this case were not limited to a mere reconsideration of the evaluation of evidence.
The issues raised included the Sukagawa City Council’s resignation recommendation resolutions before the final criminal judgment, violations of the presumption of innocence, prejudicial public expressions by public authorities, the right to a fair trial, the process of statement formation, the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., and the need for judicial relief.
For that reason, this document is a central document for examining how the court organized those issues within the retrial request procedure and how it judged them in relation to the grounds for retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions Arising from This Document
1. Why did the court describe the claims as “not clear”?
This document evaluates the contents of the written opinion dated April 28, 2025, and the written opinion dated July 9, 2025, submitted by the requester, as “not clear.”
However, this document does not provide a detailed explanation of the specific reasons for that evaluation.
The written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials submitted in this case did not merely request the commencement of a retrial. They raised issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence by public authorities before the final criminal judgment, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions, the process of statement formation, and the need for judicial relief.
If so, which part of which claim did the court consider “not clear”?
How did the court organize each claim, and within which legal framework did it place them?
This is the first question arising from this document.
2. Can claims of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial be processed only under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
This document interprets the requester’s claims as seeking a decision to commence retrial on the ground that there existed circumstances falling under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
That provision concerns a ground for retrial based on newly discovered clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal.
However, the issue in this case is not limited to the existence or nonexistence of new evidence.
In this case, there is the question whether, before the guilty judgment became final, a local assembly as a public authority made a public expression of intent premised on criminal responsibility in violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
There is also the question how such public assumptions of guilt were connected to statement formation, the charged facts, the admission of evidence, the plea in open court, the reasons for the judgment, and sentencing evaluation.
Accordingly, the question arises whether the court could process these issues solely as a matter of whether they constituted new evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. How were the statement records, newspaper articles, council minutes, and other materials treated?
This document summarizes the requester’s position as stating that he retained copies of statement records provided by defense counsel after the judgment was pronounced, as well as newspaper articles, council minutes, and other materials collected by the requester as evidence or related materials.
However, the court held that those documents or materials had not been shown to be newly discovered clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal after the final judgment, and that they had not been submitted.
Several questions arise from this point.
First, to what extent did the court specifically understand the contents of the statement records, newspaper articles, council minutes, and other materials?
Second, were those materials examined not only as potential evidence that, by themselves, would lead to an acquittal, but also as materials showing violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, the process of statement formation, and institutional pressure?
Third, how does the finding that “such materials had not been submitted” align with the history of submissions in this case and the treatment of the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials?
These points must be examined together with the written opinion addressed to the court, its attached materials, the written opinion responding to the request for opinion, and the later appeal-stage materials.
4. Were the “remaining assertions” specifically examined?
This document states that, even upon examining the requester’s remaining assertions, it is clear that none of the grounds for retrial prescribed in the items of Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies.
However, this document does not specifically show what the “remaining assertions” refer to or what examination was conducted with respect to each assertion.
The important issues in this case include violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR, General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30, Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, and General Comment No. 31, Paragraphs 15 and 16.
These claims relate not only to formal applicability under domestic grounds for retrial, but also to Japan’s obligation to observe treaties under Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan and to the need for effective relief.
Accordingly, the question arises whether, in the portion collectively treated as the “remaining assertions,” these constitutional and treaty-based claims were substantively examined.
5. How should this decision be evaluated from the perspective of effective relief?
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR concerns the right to an effective remedy for violations of Covenant rights.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraphs 15 and 16 also provide important standards concerning effective investigation and remedies for allegations of violations.
In this document, the court organized the requester’s claims as a question of whether they constituted newly discovered evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the request on the ground that no ground for retrial applied.
However, in this case, the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials raised issues concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, and the need for judicial relief.
Therefore, the question arises how far the court substantively examined those issues, and whether the court could avoid examining the obligation to provide relief under the ICCPR by relying on the domestic framework of the retrial system.
This point is also important in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
6. How did this decision connect to the subsequent immediate appeal and special appeal?
This document is the decision of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissing the retrial request.
Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal against this decision.
Accordingly, this document is not a document that stands alone. It connects to the later immediate appeal before the Sendai High Court and further to the special appeal to the Supreme Court.
How this document treated violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and obligations to provide relief under the ICCPR forms the premise for understanding what became issues in the later appeal proceedings.
Therefore, this document occupies a central position in examining the entire retrial request procedure.
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Legal Standards
Domestic Law
Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision sets out one of the grounds for retrial, namely the discovery of clear evidence that should lead to an acquittal. This document is directly related to that provision because the court organized the requester’s claims as a question of applicability under that item and held that the item did not apply.
Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This article sets out the grounds for requesting a retrial. In this document, the court held that, even after examining the requester’s remaining assertions, it was clear that none of the grounds for retrial prescribed in the items of this article applied.
Article 447, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision concerns the dismissal by decision of a retrial request when the request is without merit. In this document, the court dismissed the present retrial request pursuant to this paragraph.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the guarantee of due process. In this case, the issues include the fact that a public authority made a public expression of intent premised on guilt before criminal responsibility had been finally determined, and the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole thereafter.
Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan:
This article concerns the right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial. In this case, the issues include whether a fair trial was secured in relation to resignation recommendation resolutions before judgment, the process of statement formation, the admission of evidence, and the reasons for the judgment.
Article 98, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires Japan to faithfully observe the treaties it has concluded and established international law. It is important in relation to the domestic significance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision imposes on judges, ministers of state, members of the Diet, local assembly members, and other public officials the obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution. In this case, the issue is how the court should have responded to clear constitutional and treaty-based issues.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to a fair trial. In this case, it is important in examining how public assumptions of guilt before judgment and institutional pressure may have affected the fairness of the criminal trial.
Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision establishes the presumption of innocence. In this case, the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the Sukagawa City Council before the criminal conviction became final, and the reasoning underlying those resolutions, are at issue in relation to this principle.
Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICCPR:
This provision concerns the right to an effective remedy. In this case, it is important in examining what kind of judicial relief should have been secured within the retrial request procedure for the alleged violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
General Comments
General Comment No. 32, Paragraph 30:
This paragraph indicates that all public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial. In this case, it is important in relation to the resignation recommendation resolutions adopted by the city council before judgment and the public expressions of intent premised on criminal facts.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 15:
This paragraph states that allegations of violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly, and effectively, and that a failure to investigate may itself give rise to a separate violation of the Covenant. In this case, it is important in examining how the issues raised in the written opinion and attached materials submitted to the court were handled in the subsequent retrial request procedure.
General Comment No. 31, Paragraph 16:
This paragraph identifies forms of effective remedy, including compensation or reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, public apologies, guarantees of non-repetition, and changes in relevant laws and practices. In this case, it is important in considering what kind of remedy was required for violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, rather than mere formal procedural handling.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith. It is important in considering whether domestic authorities must faithfully perform obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and effective remedies.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):
This article provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. It is important in examining whether the requirements of the retrial system, domestic procedural limitations, or the characterization of a resignation recommendation resolution as a non-binding expression of intent can justify avoiding consideration of obligations under the ICCPR concerning the presumption of innocence and effective remedies.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the interrelationship among these provisions are examined in “Legal Claims and the Structure of Constitutional and Legal Violations.”
Relationship to This Case
This document is the decision by which the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissed the retrial request in the matter that the court had treated as if “a request for retrial had been made” based on the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials.
In this case, public expressions of intent were made by the Sukagawa City Council before the criminal conviction became final, including the first resignation recommendation resolution on October 26, 2011, and the second resignation recommendation resolution on December 1, 2011.
The issue in this case is not merely the existence of the guilty judgment itself.
The issue is whether, before the guilty judgment became final, a local assembly as a public authority made public expressions of intent premised on criminal responsibility and thereby engaged in prejudicial treatment contrary to the presumption of innocence.
In addition, in this case, the criminal proceedings from arrest, detention, extension of detention, prosecutor’s interrogation, indictment, first hearing, and judgment raise issues concerning the charged fact stated as occurring at around 7:40 p.m., the process of statement formation, statement records of council members who voted in favor of the resignation recommendation resolution, and the sentencing evaluation of the defendant’s status as a city council member in the judgment.
Against this background, Toshio Tsumuraya raised issues before the court concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, and the need for judicial relief.
This document shows how the court treated those issues in the retrial request procedure and on what grounds it dismissed the request.
This document itself cannot be said to contain a substantive judgment on whether violations of the presumption of innocence or the right to a fair trial existed.
Rather, what can be confirmed from this document is that the court organized the requester’s claims as a question of whether they constituted newly discovered evidence under Article 435, Item 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the request on the ground that no ground for retrial applied.
Accordingly, this document is important for confirming how the written opinion addressed to the court and its attached materials, which raised claims of violations of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, were organized by the court and connected to the dismissal of the retrial request.
In particular, this document does not show an individualized and specific judgment concerning violations of the presumption of innocence, violations of the right to a fair trial, the ICCPR, General Comments, or the obligation to provide effective relief.
This point is important in examining the effectiveness of judicial relief in this case.
This document connects to the subsequent immediate appeal, the decision dismissing the immediate appeal, the special appeal, and the decision dismissing the special appeal.
For that reason, this document serves as the starting point for examining the later appellate proceedings and Supreme Court decision as the first-stage judicial decision in the retrial request procedure.
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Written Opinion to the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court—Response to the Court’s Request for Opinion（Plans to post in the future）
Related normative articles:
Related timeline entries:
January 31, 2012
The guilty judgment rendered by the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court became final.
April 28, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a written opinion addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Fukushima District Court, and the Head of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court.
May 2, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court assigned the case number 2025 ta No. 1 and treated the matter as a retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On the same day, the court issued an administrative notice.
June 13, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court issued a request for opinion in the 2025 ta No. 1 retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
December 12, 2025
The Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court dismissed the retrial request in the 2025 ta No. 1 retrial case concerning a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
December 15, 2025
Toshio Tsumuraya filed an immediate appeal against the decision dismissing the retrial request.
January 8, 2026
The immediate appeal was dismissed.
January 11, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya filed a special appeal.
February 6, 2026
The special appeal was dismissed.
March 31, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted a “Questionnaire and Request Concerning the Effect of a Final Criminal Judgment and Judicial Remedies Under Violation of the Presumption of Innocence” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Division of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. As of the present time, no response from the courts directly addressing the substance of this document has been confirmed.
May 15, 2026
Toshio Tsumuraya submitted an “Application for Human Rights Relief and Corrective Measures Concerning Violation of the Presumption of Innocence, Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial, and Related Violations” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Sendai High Court, and the Criminal Division of the Koriyama Branch of the Fukushima District Court. As of the present time, no response from the courts directly addressing the substance of this document has been confirmed.